[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

[Jackson Muthili]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
> Lu,
>
> I am uncomfortable with the increased Chinese presence on this matter Lu.
> It seems to me that “substantial opposition” is being drummed up so this
> does not pass.
>
> I am also uncomfortable with the repeated legal threats which in my opinion
> have no basis if the fundamental contract that governs the relationship with
> members is violated.

1. If there is nothing to hide there is no need to be afraid of audits.
2. AfriNIC cannot be held ransom by legal threats from - let's face it
- a few individuals. AfriNIC is bigger than "a company with a /12" and
AfriNIC can claim the /12 back if breach and lack of compliance is
detected. There will always be threats to sue especially if some
individuals selfish interests have been quashed.

-J

>  Like I said,  we wait for legal and I’d be inclined
> to ask for a second opinion if what is clearly a straightforward matter is
> couched in a manner to frighten the community.
>
> I am also uncomfortable with you speaking for Kris.  As far as I know, he
> could not have been "responsible for the budget calculation".  He was a
> board member not in the executive.  Perhaps he can speak up for himself and
> tell us how he does the budget for AfriNIC.
>
> You say AfriNIC is a book keeper.   At least we agree that their
> responsibility is to keep the books and audit is a necessary part of this.
> Is Lu Heng a lawyer?  I tire for the implied threats.
>
> My 0.02.
>
>
> I
>
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 13:01, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Omo:
>
>
>
> On 27 June 2017 at 19:35, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I still stand opposed to the policy. People just call it an Andrew or
>>> liquid audit policy or a cloud innovations policy audit. Let’s not hide and
>>> get off with it.
>>>
>>> Kris
>>
>>
>>
>> Are these people suggesting these organisations have something to hide?
>>
>> I don't see how this policy can be an issue for any member who has not
>> violated the rules or abused contractual agreements with AfrINIC
>
>
> 1. Because audit cost money and man power, audit an large organization like
> national telecom require multiple times of AFRINIC budget, it is beyond what
> AFRINIC can afford, Kris is the one responsible for the budget calculation
> and he as already clearly states that.
>
> 2. Not fairly audit all members is direct violation of ICP-2, selective and
> subjective will results abuse of monopoly power lawsuit at first guidance.
>
> 3. Audit require sensitive business information in which no business would
> like to share,  moreover it is illegal to share in most cases, for example
> what if afrinic require member provide all customer data to justify
> utilization? It is in direct violation of privacy law in many countries.
>
>
>>
>> Let's be a bit more accountable here.   Responsible stewardship requires
>> being able to audit and I understand that revocation is a last resort.  I
>> support the policy on this basis.
>
>
> The ultimate question is, CAN AFRINIC afford revocation? yes, if you revoke
> a /22, the member may be too small to finding problem with you, but if you
> revoke a /12? Any company with a /12 have power to sue AFRINIC to broke. not
> mentioning the business damage and lost of the connections for the end user
> and business users, the address range alone worth 10-15 million dollars in
> which effectively is 2 years of income for AFRINIC.
>
> Let's get into real world which has laws and high court in which ultimate
> have the real reenforce power with police and military to back what they are
> doing, AFRINIC has none, while you still ask AFRINIC to direct confront all
> it's members at 100 times its size, I just don't see that as realistic.
>
> AFRINIC is a book keeper, if you ask it to be police, then give it's the
> REAL power needed to be one, for example, pass a resolution at AFRICAN
> union.
>
>>
>> More importantly, the policy is in last call and the authors have
>> responded to legal's message through the Co-chairs.  I look forward to the
>> Co-chairs feedback on that matter.
>
>
> Any policy at last call receive substantial opposition go back to discussion
> phase for future discussion, in the last call does not means people can not
> push the policy back if they disagree it with rightful argument.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> --
>> Omo Oaiya
>> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
>> Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224
>> Skype: kodion
>> http://www.wacren.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
>
> —
> Omo Oaiya
> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224
> Skype: kodion
> http://www.wacren.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>